To be converted, to be regenerated, to receive grace, to experience religion, to gain an assurance, are so many
phrases which denote the process, gradual or sudden, by which a self hitherto divided, and consciously wrong inferior
and unhappy, becomes unified and consciously right superior and happy, in consequence of its firmer hold upon religious
realities. This at least is what conversion signifies in general terms, whether or not we believe that a direct divine
operation is needed to bring such a moral change about.

Before entering upon a minuter study of the process, let me enliven our understanding of the definition by a
concrete example. I choose the quaint case of an unlettered man, Stephen H. Bradley, whose experience is related in a
scarce American pamphlet.98

98 A sketch of the life of Stephen H. Bradley, from the age of
five to twenty four years, including his remarkable experience of the power of the Holy Spirit on the second evening of
November, 1829. Madison, Connecticut, 1830.

I select this case because it shows how in these inner alterations one may find one unsuspected depth below another,
as if the possibilities of character lay disposed in a series of layers or shells, of whose existence we have no
premonitory knowledge.

Bradley thought that he had been already fully converted at the age of fourteen.

“I thought I saw the Saviour, by faith, in human shape, for about one second in the room, with arms extended,
appearing to say to me, Come. The next day I rejoiced with trembling; soon after, my happiness was so great that I said
that I wanted to die; this world had no place in my affections, as I knew of, and every day appeared as solemn to me as
the Sabbath. I had an ardent desire that all mankind might feel as I did; I wanted to have them all love God supremely.
Previous to this time I was very selfish and self-righteous; but now I desired the welfare of all mankind, and could
with a feeling heart forgive my worst enemies, and I felt as if I should be willing to bear the scoffs and sneers of
any person, and suffer anything for His sake, if I could be the means in the hands of God, of the conversion of one
soul.”

Nine years later, in 1829, Mr. Bradley heard of a revival of religion that had begun in his neighborhood. “Many of
the young converts,” he says, “would come to me when in meeting and ask me if I had religion, and my reply generally
was, I hope I have. This did not appear to satisfy them; they said they KNEW THEY had it. I requested them to pray for
me, thinking with myself, that if I had not got religion now, after so long a time professing to be a Christian, that
it was time I had, and hoped their prayers would be answered in my behalf.

“One Sabbath, I went to hear the Methodist at the Academy. He spoke of the ushering in of the day of general
judgment; and he set it forth in such a solemn and terrible manner as I never heard before. The scene of that day
appeared to be taking place, and so awakened were all the powers of my mind that, like Felix, I trembled involuntarily
on the bench where I was sitting, though I felt nothing at heart. The next day evening I went to hear him again. He
took his text from Revelation: ‘And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God.’ And he represented the terrors
of that day in such a manner that it appeared as if it would melt the heart of stone. When he finished his discourse,
an old gentleman turned to me and said ‘This is what I call preaching.’ I thought the same, but my feelings were still
unmoved by what he said, and I did not enjoy religion, but I believe he did.

“I will now relate my experience of the power of the Holy Spirit which took place on the same night. Had any person
told me previous to this that I could have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in the manner which I did, I could
not have believed it, and should have thought the person deluded that told me so. I went directly home after the
meeting, and when I got home I wondered what made me feel so stupid. I retired to rest soon after I got home, and felt
indifferent to the things of religion until I began to be exercised by the Holy Spirit, which began in about five
minutes after, in the following manner:—

“At first, I began to feel my heart beat very quick all on a sudden, which made me at first think that perhaps
something is going to ail me, though I was not alarmed, for I felt no pain. My heart increased in its beating, which
soon convinced me that it was the Holy Spirit from the effect it had on me. I began to feel exceedingly happy and
humble, and such a sense of unworthiness as I never felt before. I could not very well help speaking out, which I did,
and said, Lord, I do not deserve this happiness, or words to that effect, while there was a stream (resembling air in
feeling) came into my mouth and heart in a more sensible manner than that of drinking anything, which continued, as
near as I could judge, five minutes or more, which appeared to be the cause of such a palpitation of my heart. It took
complete possession of my soul, and I am certain that I desired the Lord, while in the midst of it, not to give me any
more happiness, for it seemed as if I could not contain what I had got. My heart seemed as if it would burst, but it
did not stop until I felt as if I was unutterably full of the love and grace of God. In the mean time while thus
exercised, a thought arose in my mind, what can it mean? and all at once, as if to answer it, my memory became
exceedingly clear, and it appeared to me just as if the New Testament was placed open before me, eighth chapter of
Romans, and as light as if some candle lighted was held for me to read the 26th and 27th verses of that chapter, and I
read these words: ‘The Spirit helpeth our infirmities with groanings which cannot be uttered.’ And all the time that my
heart was a-beating, it made me groan like a person in distress, which was not very easy to stop, though I was in no
pain at all, and my brother being in bed in another room came and opened the door, and asked me if I had got the
toothache. I told him no, and that he might get to sleep. I tried to stop. I felt unwilling to go to sleep myself, I
was so happy, fearing I should lose it — thinking within myself

‘My willing soul would stay
In such a frame as this.’

And while I lay reflecting, after my heart stopped beating, feeling as if my soul was full of the Holy Spirit, I
thought that perhaps there might be angels hovering round my bed. I felt just as if I wanted to converse with them, and
finally I spoke, saying ‘O ye affectionate angels! how is it that ye can take so much interest in our welfare, and we
take so little interest in our own.’ After this, with difficulty I got to sleep; and when I awoke in the morning my
first thoughts were: What has become of my happiness? and, feeling a degree of it in my heart, I asked for more, which
was given to me as quick as thought. I then got up to dress myself, and found to my surprise that I could but just
stand. It appeared to me as if it was a little heaven upon earth. My soul felt as completely raised above the fears of
death as of going to sleep; and like a bird in a cage, I had a desire, if it was the will of God, to get released from
my body and to dwell with Christ, though willing to live to do good to others, and to warn sinners to repent. I went
downstairs feeling as solemn as if I had lost all my friends, and thinking with myself, that I would not let my parents
know it until I had first looked into the Testament. I went directly to the shelf and looked into it, at the eighth of
Romans, and every verse seemed to almost speak and to confirm it to be truly the Word of God, and as if my feelings
corresponded with the meaning of the word. I then told my parents of it, and told them that I thought that they must
see that when I spoke, that it was not my own voice, for it appeared so to me. My speech seemed entirely under the
control of the Spirit within me; I do not mean that the words which I spoke were not my own, for they were. I thought
that I was influenced similar to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost (with the exception of having power to give it to
others, and doing what they did). After breakfast I went round to converse with my neighbors on religion, which I could
not have been hired to have done before this, and at their request I prayed with them, though I had never prayed in
public before.

“I now feel as if I had discharged my duty by telling the truth, and hope by the blessing of God, it may do some
good to all who shall read it. He has fulfilled his promise in sending the Holy Spirit down into our hearts, or mine at
least, and I now defy all the Deists and Atheists in the world to shake my faith in Christ.”

So much for Mr. Bradley and his conversion, of the effect of which upon his later life we gain no information. Now
for a minuter survey of the constituent elements of the conversion process.

If you open the chapter on Association, of any treatise on Psychology, you will read that a man’s ideas, aims, and
objects form diverse internal groups and systems, relatively independent of one another. Each ‘aim’ which he follows
awakens a certain specific kind of interested excitement, and gathers a certain group of ideas together in
subordination to it as its associates; and if the aims and excitements are distinct in kind, their groups of ideas may
have little in common. When one group is present and engrosses the interest, all the ideas connected with other groups
may be excluded from the mental field. The President of the United States when, with paddle, gun, and fishing-rod, he
goes camping in the wilderness for a vacation, changes his system of ideas from top to bottom. The presidential
anxieties have lapsed into the background entirely; the official habits are replaced by the habits of a son of nature,
and those who knew the man only as the strenuous magistrate would not “know him for the same person” if they saw him as
the camper.

If now he should never go back, and never again suffer political interests to gain dominion over him, he would be
for practical intents and purposes a permanently transformed being. Our ordinary alterations of character, as we pass
from one of our aims to another, are not commonly called transformations, because each of them is so rapidly succeeded
by another in the reverse direction; but whenever one aim grows so stable as to expel definitively its previous rivals
from the individual’s life, we tend to speak of the phenomenon, and perhaps to wonder at it, as a “transformation.”

These alternations are the completest of the ways in which a self may be divided. A less complete way is the
simultaneous coexistence of two or more different groups of aims, of which one practically holds the right of way and
instigates activity, whilst the others are only pious wishes, and never practically come to anything. Saint Augustine’s
aspirations to a purer life, in our last lecture, were for a while an example. Another would be the President in his
full pride of office, wondering whether it were not all vanity, and whether the life of a wood-chopper were not the
wholesomer destiny. Such fleeting aspirations are mere velleitates, whimsies. They exist on the remoter outskirts of
the mind, and the real self of the man, the centre of his energies, is occupied with an entirely different system. As
life goes on, there is a constant change of our interests, and a consequent change of place in our systems of ideas,
from more central to more peripheral, and from more peripheral to more central parts of consciousness. I remember, for
instance, that one evening when I was a youth, my father read aloud from a Boston newspaper that part of Lord Gifford’s
will which founded these four lectureships. At that time I did not think of being a teacher of philosophy, and what I
listened to was as remote from my own life as if it related to the planet Mars. Yet here I am, with the Gifford system
part and parcel of my very self, and all my energies, for the time being, devoted to successfully identifying myself
with it. My soul stands now planted in what once was for it a practically unreal object, and speaks from it as from its
proper habitat and centre.

When I say “Soul,” you need not take me in the ontological sense unless you prefer to; for although ontological
language is instinctive in such matters, yet Buddhists or Humians can perfectly well describe the facts in the
phenomenal terms which are their favorites. For them the soul is only a succession of fields of consciousness: yet
there is found in each field a part, or sub-field, which figures as focal and contains the excitement, and from which,
as from a centre, the aim seems to be taken. Talking of this part, we involuntarily apply words of perspective to
distinguish it from the rest, words like “here,” “this,” “now,” “mine,” or “me”; and we ascribe to the other parts the
positions “there,” “then,” “that,” “his” or “thine,” “it,” “not me.” But a “here” can change to a “there,” and a
“there” become a “here,” and what was “mine” and what was “not mine” change their places.

What brings such changes about is the way in which emotional excitement alters. Things hot and vital to us today are
cold tomorrow. It is as if seen from the hot parts of the field that the other parts appear to us, and from these hot
parts personal desire and volition make their sallies. They are in short the centres of our dynamic energy, whereas the
cold parts leave us indifferent and passive in proportion to their coldness.

Whether such language be rigorously exact is for the present of no importance. It is exact enough, if you recognize
from your own experience the facts which I seek to designate by it.

Now there may be great oscillation in the emotional interest, and the hot places may shift before one almost as
rapidly as the sparks that run through burnt-up paper. Then we have the wavering and divided self we heard so much of
in the previous lecture. Or the focus of excitement and heat, the point of view from which the aim is taken, may come
to lie permanently within a certain system; and then, if the change be a religious one, we call it a Conversion,
especially if it be by crisis, or sudden.

Let us hereafter, in speaking of the hot place in a man’s consciousness, the group of ideas to which he devotes
himself, and from which he works, call it THE HABITUAL CENTRE OF HIS PERSONAL ENERGY. It makes a great difference to a
man whether one set of his ideas, or another, be the centre of his energy; and it makes a great difference, as regards
any set of ideas which he may possess, whether they become central or remain peripheral in him. To say that a man is
“converted” means, in these terms, that religious ideas, previously peripheral in his consciousness, now take a central
place, and that religious aims form the habitual centre of his energy.

Now if you ask of psychology just HOW the excitement shifts in a man’s mental system, and WHY aims that were
peripheral become at a certain moment central, psychology has to reply that although she can give a general description
of what happens, she is unable in a given case to account accurately for all the single forces at work. Neither an
outside observer nor the Subject who undergoes the process can explain fully how particular experiences are able to
change one’s centre of energy so decisively, or why they so often have to bide their hour to do so. We have a thought,
or we perform an act, repeatedly, but on a certain day the real meaning of the thought peals through us for the first
time, or the act has suddenly turned into a moral impossibility. All we know is that there are dead feelings, dead
ideas, and cold beliefs, and there are hot and live ones; and when one grows hot and alive within us, everything has to
re-crystallize about it. We may say that the heat and liveliness mean only the “motor efficacy,” long deferred but now
operative, of the idea; but such talk itself is only circumlocution, for whence the sudden motor efficacy? And our
explanations then get so vague and general that one realizes all the more the intense individuality of the whole
phenomenon.

In the end we fall back on the hackneyed symbolism of a mechanical equilibrium. A mind is a system of ideas, each
with the excitement it arouses, and with tendencies impulsive and inhibitive, which mutually check or reinforce one
another. The collection of ideas alters by subtraction or by addition in the course of experience, and the tendencies
alter as the organism gets more aged. A mental system may be undermined or weakened by this interstitial alteration
just as a building is, and yet for a time keep upright by dead habit. But a new perception, a sudden emotional shock,
or an occasion which lays bare the organic alteration, will make the whole fabric fall together; and then the centre of
gravity sinks into an attitude more stable, for the new ideas that reach the centre in the rearrangement seem now to be
locked there, and the new structure remains permanent.

Formed associations of ideas and habits are usually factors of retardation in such changes of equilibrium. New
information, however acquired, plays an accelerating part in the changes; and the slow mutation of our instincts and
propensities, under the “unimaginable touch of time” has an enormous influence. Moreover, all these influences may work
subconsciously or half unconsciously.99 And when you get a Subject in whom the
subconscious life — of which I must speak more fully soon — is largely developed, and in whom motives habitually ripen
in silence, you get a case of which you can never give a full account, and in which, both to the Subject and the
onlookers, there may appear an element of marvel. Emotional occasions, especially violent ones, are extremely potent in
precipitating mental rearrangements. The sudden and explosive ways in which love, jealousy, guilt, fear, remorse, or
anger can seize upon one are known to everybody.100 Hope, happiness,
security, resolve, emotions characteristic of conversion, can be equally explosive. And emotions that come in this
explosive way seldom leave things as they found them.

99 Jouffroy is an example: “Down this slope it was that my
intelligence had glided, and little by little it had got far from its first faith. But this melancholy revolution had
not taken place in the broad daylight of my consciousness; too many scruples, too many guides and sacred affections had
made it dreadful to me, so that I was far from avowing to myself the progress it had made. It had gone on in silence,
by an involuntary elaboration of which I was not the accomplice; and although I had in reality long ceased to be a
Christian, yet, in the innocence of my intention, I should have shuddered to suspect it, and thought it calumny had I
been accused of such a falling away.” Then follows Jouffroy’s account of his counter-conversion, quoted above on p.
173.

100 One hardly needs examples; but for love, see p. 176,
note, for fear, p. 161; for remorse, see Othello after the murder; for anger see Lear after Cordelia’s first speech to
him; for resolve, see p. 175 (J. Foster case). Here is a pathological case in which GUILT was the feeling that suddenly
exploded: “One night I was seized on entering bed with a rigor, such as Swedenborg describes as coming over him with a
sense of holiness, but over me with a sense of GUILT. During that whole night I lay under the influence of the rigor,
and from its inception I felt that I was under the curse of God. I have never done one act of duty in my life — sins
against God and man beginning as far as my memory goes back — a wildcat in human shape.”

In his recent work on the Psychology of Religion, Professor Starbuck of California has shown by a statistical
inquiry how closely parallel in its manifestations the ordinary “conversion” which occurs in young people brought up in
evangelical circles is to that growth into a larger spiritual life which is a normal phase of adolescence in every
class of human beings. The age is the same, falling usually between fourteen and seventeen. The symptoms are the same —
sense of incompleteness and imperfection; brooding, depression, morbid introspection, and sense of sin; anxiety about
the hereafter; distress over doubts, and the like. And the result is the same — a happy relief and objectivity, as the
confidence in self gets greater through the adjustment of the faculties to the wider outlook. In spontaneous religious
awakening, apart from revivalistic examples, and in the ordinary storm and stress and moulting-time of adolescence, we
also may meet with mystical experiences, astonishing the subjects by their suddenness, just as in revivalistic
conversion. The analogy, in fact, is complete; and Starbuck’s conclusion as to these ordinary youthful conversions
would seem to be the only sound one: Conversion is in its essence a normal adolescent phenomenon, incidental to the
passage from the child’s small universe to the wider intellectual and spiritual life of maturity.

“Theology,” says Dr. Starbuck, “takes the adolescent tendencies and builds upon them; it sees that the essential
thing in adolescent growth is bringing the person out of childhood into the new life of maturity and personal insight.
It accordingly brings those means to bear which will intensify the normal tendencies. It shortens up the period of
duration of storm and stress.” The conversion phenomena of “conviction of sin” last, by this investigator’s statistics,
about one fifth as long as the periods of adolescent storm and stress phenomena of which he also got statistics, but
they are very much more intense. Bodily accompaniments, loss of sleep and appetite, for example, are much more frequent
in them. “The essential distinction appears to be that conversion intensifies but shortens the period by bringing the
person to a definite crisis.”101

The conversions which Dr. Starbuck here has in mind are of course mainly those of very commonplace persons, kept
true to a preappointed type by instruction, appeal, and example. The particular form which they affect is the result of
suggestion and imitation.102 If they went through their growth-crisis in
other faiths and other countries, although the essence of the change would be the same (since it is one in the main so
inevitable), its accidents would be different. In Catholic lands, for example, and in our own Episcopalian sects, no
such anxiety and conviction of sin is usual as in sects that encourage revivals. The sacraments being more relied on in
these more strictly ecclesiastical bodies, the individual’s personal acceptance of salvation needs less to be
accentuated and led up to.

102 No one understands this better than Jonathan Edwards
understood it already. Conversion narratives of the more commonplace sort must always be taken with the allowances
which he suggests:

“A rule received and established by common consent has a very great, though to many persons an insensible influence
in forming their notions of the process of their own experience. I know very well how they proceed as to this matter,
for I have had frequent opportunities of observing their conduct. Very often their experience at first appears like a
confused chaos, but then those parts are selected which bear the nearest resemblance to such particular steps as are
insisted on; and these are dwelt upon in their thoughts, and spoken of from time to time, till they grow more and more
conspicuous in their view, and other parts which are neglected grow more and more obscure. Thus what they have
experienced is insensibly strained, so as to bring it to an exact conformity to the scheme already established in their
minds. And it becomes natural also for ministers, who have to deal with those who insist upon distinctness and
clearness of method, to do so too.” Treatise on Religious Affections.

But every imitative phenomenon must once have had its original, and I propose that for the future we keep as close
as may be to the more first-hand and original forms of experience. These are more likely to be found in sporadic adult
cases.

Professor Leuba, in a valuable article on the psychology of conversion,103 subordinates the theological aspect of the religious life almost entirely to its moral aspect.
The religious sense he defines as “the feeling of unwholeness, of moral imperfection, of sin, to use the technical
word, accompanied by the yearning after the peace of unity.” “The word ‘religion,’” he says, “is getting more and more
to signify the conglomerate of desires and emotions springing from the sense of sin and its release”; and he gives a
large number of examples, in which the sin ranges from drunkenness to spiritual pride, to show that the sense of it may
beset one and crave relief as urgently as does the anguish of the sickened flesh or any form of physical misery.

103 Studies in the Psychology of Religious Phenomena,
American Journal of Psychology, vii. 309 (1896).

Undoubtedly this conception covers an immense number of cases. A good one to use as an example is that of Mr. S. H.
Hadley, who after his conversion became an active and useful rescuer of drunkards in New York. His experience runs as
follows:—

“One Tuesday evening I sat in a saloon in Harlem, a homeless, friendless, dying drunkard. I had pawned or sold
everything that would bring a drink. I could not sleep unless I was dead drunk. I had not eaten for days, and for four
nights preceding I had suffered with delirium tremens, or the horrors, from midnight till morning. I had often said, ‘I
will never be a tramp. I will never be cornered, for when that time comes, if ever it comes, I will find a home in the
bottom of the river.’ But the Lord so ordered it that when that time did come I was not able to walk one quarter of the
way to the river. As I sat there thinking, I seemed to feel some great and mighty presence. I did not know then what it
was. I did learn afterwards that it was Jesus, the sinner’s friend. I walked up to the bar and pounded it with my fist
till I made the glasses rattle. Those who stood by drinking looked on with scornful curiosity. I said I would never
take another drink, if I died on the street, and really I felt as though that would happen before morning. Something
said, ‘If you want to keep this promise, go and have yourself locked up.’ I went to the nearest station-house and had
myself locked up.

“I was placed in a narrow cell, and it seemed as though all the demons that could find room came in that place with
me. This was not all the company I had, either. No, praise the Lord: that dear Spirit that came to me in the saloon was
present, and said, Pray. I did pray, and though I did not feel any great help, I kept on praying. As soon as I was able
to leave my cell I was taken to the police court and remanded back to the cell. I was finally released, and found my
way to my brother’s house, where every care was given me. While lying in bed the admonishing Spirit never left me, and
when I arose the following Sabbath morning I felt that day would decide my fate, and toward evening it came into my
head to go to Jerry M’Auley’s Mission. I went. The house was packed, and with great difficulty I made my way to the
space near the platform. There I saw the apostle to the drunkard and the outcast — that man of God, Jerry M’Auley. He
rose, and amid deep silence told his experience. There was a sincerity about this man that carried conviction with it,
and I found myself saying, ‘I wonder if God can save me?’ I listened to the testimony of twenty-five or thirty persons,
every one of whom had been saved from rum, and I made up my mind that I would be saved or die right there. When the
invitation was given, I knelt down with a crowd of drunkards. Jerry made the first prayer. Then Mrs. M’Auley prayed
fervently for us. Oh, what a conflict was going on for my poor soul! A blessed whisper said, ‘Come’; the devil said,
‘Be careful.’ I halted but a moment, and then, with a breaking heart, I said, ‘Dear Jesus, can you help me?’ Never with
mortal tongue can I describe that moment. Although up to that moment my soul had been filled with indescribable gloom,
I felt the glorious brightness of the noonday sun shine into my heart. I felt I was a free man. Oh, the precious
feeling of safety, of freedom, of resting on Jesus! I felt that Christ with all his brightness and power had come into
my life; that, indeed, old things had passed away and all things had become new.

“From that moment till now I have never wanted a drink of whiskey, and I have never seen money enough to make me
take one. I promised God that night that if he would take away the appetite for strong drink, I would work for him all
my life. He has done his part, and I have been trying to do mine.”104

104 I have abridged Mr. Hadley’s account. For other
conversions of drunkards, see his pamphlet, Rescue Mission Work, published at the Old Jerry M’Auley Water Street
Mission, New York City. A striking collection of cases also appears in the appendix to Professor Leuba’s article.

{200} Dr. Leuba rightly remarks that there is little doctrinal theology in such an experience, which starts with the
absolute need of a higher helper, and ends with the sense that he has helped us. He gives other cases of drunkards’
conversions which are purely ethical, containing, as recorded, no theological beliefs whatever. John B. Gough’s case,
for instance, is practically, says Dr. Leuba, the conversion of an atheist — neither God nor Jesus being
mentioned.105 But in spite of the importance of this type of regeneration,
with little or no intellectual readjustment, this writer surely makes it too exclusive. It corresponds to the
subjectively centered form of morbid melancholy, of which Bunyan and Alline were examples. But we saw in our seventh
lecture that there are objective forms of melancholy also, in which the lack of rational meaning of the universe, and
of life anyhow, is the burden that weighs upon one — you remember Tolstoy’s case.106 So there are distinct elements in conversion, and their relations to individual lives deserve to
be discriminated.107

105 A restaurant waiter served provisionally as Gough’s
‘Saviour.’ General Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, considers that the first vital step in saving outcasts
consists in making them feel that some decent human being cares enough for them to take an interest in the question
whether they are to rise or sink.

106 The crisis of apathetic melancholy — no use in life —
into which J. S. Mill records that he fell, from which he emerged by the reading of Marmontel’s Memoirs (Heaven save
the mark!) and Wordsworth’s poetry, is another intellectual and general metaphysical case. See Mill’s Autobiography,
New York, 1873, pp. 141, 148.

107 Starbuck, in addition to “escape from sin,”
discriminates “spiritual illumination” as a distinct type of conversion experience. Psychology of Religion, p. 85.

Some persons, for instance, never are, and possibly never under any circumstances could be, converted. Religious
ideas cannot become the centre of their spiritual energy. They may be excellent persons, servants of God in practical
ways, but they are not children of his kingdom. They are either incapable of imagining the invisible; or else, in the
language of devotion, they are life-long subjects of “barrenness” and “dryness.” Such inaptitude for religious faith
may in some cases be intellectual in its origin. Their religious faculties may be checked in their natural tendency to
expand, by beliefs about the world that are inhibitive, the pessimistic and materialistic beliefs, for example, within
which so many good souls, who in former times would have freely indulged their religious propensities, find themselves
nowadays, as it were, frozen; or the agnostic vetoes upon faith as something weak and shameful, under which so many of
us today lie cowering, afraid to use our instincts. In many persons such inhibitions are never overcome. To the end of
their days they refuse to believe, their personal energy never gets to its religious centre, and the latter remains
inactive in perpetuity.

In other persons the trouble is profounder. There are men anaesthetic on the religious side, deficient in that
category of sensibility. Just as a bloodless organism can never, in spite of all its goodwill, attain to the reckless
“animal spirits” enjoyed by those of sanguine temperament; so the nature which is spiritually barren may admire and
envy faith in others, but can never compass the enthusiasm and peace which those who are temperamentally qualified for
faith enjoy. All this may, however, turn out eventually to have been a matter of temporary inhibition. Even late in
life some thaw, some release may take place, some bolt be shot back in the barrenest breast, and the man’s hard heart
may soften and break into religious feeling. Such cases more than any others suggest the idea that sudden conversion is
by miracle. So long as they exist, we must not imagine ourselves to deal with irretrievably fixed classes. Now there
are two forms of mental occurrence in human beings, which lead to a striking difference in the conversion process, a
difference to which Professor Starbuck has called attention. You know how it is when you try to recollect a forgotten
name. Usually you help the recall by working for it, by mentally running over the places, persons, and things with
which the word was connected. But sometimes this effort fails: you feel then as if the harder you tried the less hope
there would be, as though the name were JAMMED, and pressure in its direction only kept it all the more from rising.
And then the opposite expedient often succeeds. Give up the effort entirely; think of something altogether different,
and in half an hour the lost name comes sauntering into your mind, as Emerson says, as carelessly as if it had never
been invited. Some hidden process was started in you by the effort, which went on after the effort ceased, and made the
result come as if it came spontaneously. A certain music teacher, says Dr. Starbuck, says to her pupils after the thing
to be done has been clearly pointed out, and unsuccessfully attempted: “Stop trying and it will do itself!”108

There is thus a conscious and voluntary way and an involuntary and unconscious way in which mental results may get
accomplished; and we find both ways exemplified in the history of conversion, giving us two types, which Starbuck calls
the volitional type and the type by self-surrender respectively.

In the volitional type the regenerative change is usually gradual, and consists in the building up, piece by piece,
of a new set of moral and spiritual habits. But there are always critical points here at which the movement forward
seems much more rapid. This psychological fact is abundantly illustrated by Dr. Starbuck. Our education in any
practical accomplishment proceeds apparently by jerks and starts just as the growth of our physical bodies does.

“An athlete . . . sometimes awakens suddenly to an understanding of the fine points of the game and to a
real enjoyment of it, just as the convert awakens to an appreciation of religion. If he keeps on engaging in the sport,
there may come a day when all at once the game plays itself through him — when he loses himself in some great contest.
In the same way, a musician may suddenly reach a point at which pleasure in the technique of the art entirely falls
away, and in some moment of inspiration he becomes the instrument through which music flows. The writer has chanced to
hear two different married persons, both of whose wedded lives had been beautiful from the beginning, relate that not
until a year or more after marriage did they awake to the full blessedness of married life. So it is with the religious
experience of these persons we are studying.”109

We shall erelong hear still more remarkable illustrations of subconsciously maturing processes eventuating in
results of which we suddenly grow conscious. Sir William Hamilton and Professor Laycock of Edinburgh were among the
first to call attention to this class of effects; but Dr. Carpenter first, unless I am mistaken, introduced the term
“unconscious cerebration,” which has since then been a popular phrase of explanation. The facts are now known to us far
more extensively than he could know them, and the adjective “unconscious,” being for many of them almost certainly a
misnomer, is better replaced by the vaguer term “subconscious” or “subliminal.”

Of the volitional type of conversion it would be easy to give examples,110 but they are as a rule less interesting than those of the self-surrender type, in which the
subconscious effects are more abundant and often startling. I will therefore hurry to the latter, the more so because
the difference between the two types is after all not radical. Even in the most voluntarily built-up sort of
regeneration there are passages of partial self-surrender interposed; and in the great majority of all cases, when the
will had done its uttermost towards bringing one close to the complete unification aspired after, it seems that the
very last step must be left to other forces and performed without the help of its activity. In other words,
self-surrender becomes then indispensable. “The personal will,” says Dr. Starbuck, “must be given up. In many cases
relief persistently refuses to come until the person ceases to resist, or to make an effort in the direction he desires
to go.”

110 For instance, C. G. Finney italicizes the volitional
element: “Just at this point the whole question of Gospel salvation opened to my mind in a manner most marvelous to me
at the time. I think I then saw, as clearly as I ever have in my life, the reality and fullness of the atonement of
Christ. Gospel salvation seemed to me to be an offer of something to be accepted, and all that was necessary on my part
to get my own consent to give up my sins and accept Christ. After this distinct revelation had stood for some little
time before my mind, the question seemed to be put, ‘will you accept it now, today?’ I replied, ‘Yes; I will accept it
today, or I will die in the attempt!’” He then went into the woods, where he describes his struggles. He could not
pray, his heart was hardened in its pride. “I then reproached myself for having promised to give my heart to God before
I left the woods. When I came to try, I found I could not. . . . My inward soul hung back, and there was no
going out of my heart to God. The thought was pressing me, of the rashness of my promise that I would give my heart to
God that day, or die in the attempt. It seemed to me as if that was binding on my soul; and yet I was going to break my
vow. A great sinking and discouragement came over me, and I felt almost too weak to stand upon my knees. Just at this
moment I again thought I heard some one approach me, and I opened my eyes to see whether it were so. But right there
the revelation of my pride of heart, as the great difficulty that stood in the way, was distinctly shown to me. An
overwhelming sense of my wickedness in being ashamed to have a human being see me on my knees before God took such
powerful possession of me, that I cried at the top of my voice, and exclaimed that I would not leave that place if all
the men on earth and all the devils in hell surrounded me. ‘What!’ I said, ‘such a degraded sinner as I am, on my knees
confessing my sins to the great and holy God; and ashamed to have any human being, and a sinner like myself, find me on
my knees endeavoring to make my peace with my offended God!’ The sin appeared awful, infinite. It broke me down before
the Lord.” Memoirs, pp. 14–16, abridged.

“I had said I would not give up; but when my will was broken, it was all over,” writes one of Starbuck’s
correspondents. — Another says: “I simply said: ‘Lord, I have done all I can; I leave the whole matter with Thee,’ and
immediately there came to me a great peace.”— Another: “All at once it occurred to me that I might be saved, too, if I
would stop trying to do it all myself, and follow Jesus: somehow I lost my load.”— Another: “I finally ceased to
resist, and gave myself up, though it was a hard struggle. Gradually the feeling came over me that I had done my part,
and God was willing to do his.”111 —“Lord Thy will be done; damn or save!”
cries John Nelson,112 exhausted with the anxious struggle to escape
damnation; and at that moment his soul was filled with peace.

112 Extracts from the Journal of Mr. John Nelson, London, no
date, p. 24.

Dr. Starbuck gives an interesting, and it seems to me a true, account — so far as conceptions so schematic can claim
truth at all — of the reasons why self-surrender at the last moment should be so indispensable. To begin with, there
are two things in the mind of the candidate for conversion: first, the present incompleteness or wrongness, the “sin”
which he is eager to escape from; and, second, the positive ideal which he longs to compass. Now with most of us the
sense of our present wrongness is a far more distinct piece of our consciousness than is the imagination of any
positive ideal we can aim at. In a majority of cases, indeed, the “sin” almost exclusively engrosses the attention, so
that conversion is “a process of struggling away from sin rather than of striving towards righteousness.”113 A man’s conscious wit and will, so far as they strain towards the ideal, are
aiming at something only dimly and inaccurately imagined. Yet all the while the forces of mere organic ripening within
him are going on towards their own prefigured result, and his conscious strainings are letting loose subconscious
allies behind the scenes, which in their way work towards rearrangement; and the rearrangement towards which all these
deeper forces tend is pretty surely definite, and definitely different from what he consciously conceives and
determines. It may consequently be actually interfered with (JAMMED, as it were, like the lost word when we seek too
energetically to recall it), by his voluntary efforts slanting from the true direction.

Starbuck seems to put his finger on the root of the matter when he says that to exercise the personal will is still
to live in the region where the imperfect self is the thing most emphasized. Where, on the contrary, the subconscious
forces take the lead, it is more probably the better self in posse which directs the operation. Instead of being
clumsily and vaguely aimed at from without, it is then itself the organizing centre. What then must the person do? “He
must relax,” says Dr. Starbuck —“that is, he must fall back on the larger Power that makes for righteousness, which has
been welling up in his own being, and let it finish in its own way the work it has begun. . . . The act of
yielding, in this point of view, is giving one’s self over to the new life, making it the centre of a new personality,
and living, from within, the truth of it which had before been viewed objectively.”114

“Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity” is the theological way of putting this fact of the need of self-surrender;
whilst the physiological way of stating it would be, “Let one do all in one’s power, and one’s nervous system will do
the rest.” Both statements acknowledge the same fact.115

To state it in terms of our own symbolism: When the new centre of personal energy has been subconsciously incubated
so long as to be just ready to open into flower, “hands off” is the only word for us, it must burst forth unaided!

We have used the vague and abstract language of psychology. But since, in any terms, the crisis described is the
throwing of our conscious selves upon the mercy of powers which, whatever they may be, are more ideal than we are
actually, and make for our redemption, you see why self-surrender has been and always must be regarded as the vital
turning-point of the religious life, so far as the religious life is spiritual and no affair of outer works and ritual
and sacraments. One may say that the whole development of Christianity in inwardness has consisted in little more than
the greater and greater emphasis attached to this crisis of self-surrender. From Catholicism to Lutheranism, and then
to Calvinism; from that to Wesleyanism; and from this, outside of technical Christianity altogether, to pure
“liberalism” or transcendental idealism, whether or not of the mind-cure type, taking in the mediaeval mystics, the
quietists, the pietists, and quakers by the way, we can trace the stages of progress towards the idea of an immediate
spiritual help, experienced by the individual in his forlornness and standing in no essential need of doctrinal
apparatus or propitiatory machinery.

Psychology and religion are thus in perfect harmony up to this point, since both admit that there are forces
seemingly outside of the conscious individual that bring redemption to his life. Nevertheless psychology, defining
these forces as “subconscious,” and speaking of their effects, as due to “incubation,” or “cerebration,” implies that
they do not transcend the individual’s personality; and herein she diverges from Christian theology, which insists that
they are direct supernatural operations of the Deity. I propose to you that we do not yet consider this divergence
final, but leave the question for a while in abeyance — continued inquiry may enable us to get rid of some of the
apparent discord.

Revert, then, for a moment more to the psychology of self-surrender.

When you find a man living on the ragged edge of his consciousness, pent in to his sin and want and incompleteness,
and consequently inconsolable, and then simply tell him that all is well with him, that he must stop his worry, break
with his discontent, and give up his anxiety, you seem to him to come with pure absurdities. The only positive
consciousness he has tells him that all is NOT well, and the better way you offer sounds simply as if you proposed to
him to assert cold-blooded falsehoods. “The will to believe” cannot be stretched as far as that. We can make ourselves
more faithful to a belief of which we have the rudiments, but we cannot create a belief out of whole cloth when our
perception actively assures us of its opposite. The better mind proposed to us comes in that case in the form of a pure
negation of the only mind we have, and we cannot actively will a pure negation.

There are only two ways in which it is possible to get rid of anger, worry, fear, despair, or other undesirable
affections. One is that an opposite affection should overpoweringly break over us, and the other is by getting so
exhausted with the struggle that we have to stop — so we drop down, give up, and DON’T CARE any longer. Our emotional
brain-centres strike work, and we lapse into a temporary apathy. Now there is documentary proof that this state of
temporary exhaustion not infrequently forms part of the conversion crisis. So long as the egoistic worry of the sick
soul guards the door, the expansive confidence of the soul of faith gains no presence. But let the former faint away,
even but for a moment, and the latter can profit by the opportunity, and, having once acquired possession, may retain
it.

Carlyle’s Teufelsdrockh passes from the everlasting No to the everlasting Yes through a “Centre of
Indifference.”

Let me give you a good illustration of this feature in the conversion process. That genuine saint, David Brainerd,
describes his own crisis in the following words:—

“One morning, while I was walking in a solitary place as usual, I at once saw that all my contrivances and projects
to effect or procure deliverance and salvation for myself were utterly in vain; I was brought quite to a stand, as
finding myself totally lost. I saw that it was forever impossible for me to do anything towards helping or delivering
myself, that I had made all the pleas I ever could have made to all eternity; and that all my pleas were vain, for I
saw that self-interest had led me to pray, and that I had never once prayed from any respect to the glory of God. I saw
that there was no necessary connection between my prayers and the bestowment of divine mercy, that they laid not the
least obligation upon God to bestow his grace upon me; and that there was no more virtue or goodness in them than there
would be in my paddling with my hand in the water. I saw that I had been heaping up my devotions before God, fasting,
praying, etc., pretending, and indeed really thinking sometimes that I was aiming at the glory of God; whereas I never
once truly intended it, but only my own happiness. I saw that as I had never done anything for God, I had no claim on
anything from him but perdition, on account of my hypocrisy and mockery. When I saw evidently that I had regard to
nothing but self-interest, then my duties appeared a vile mockery and a continual course of lies, for the whole was
nothing but self-worship, and an horrid abuse of God.

“I continued, as I remember, in this state of mind, from Friday morning till the Sabbath evening following (July 12,
1739), when I was walking again in the same solitary place. Here, in a mournful melancholy state I was attempting to
pray; but found no heart to engage in that or any other duty; my former concern, exercise, and religious affections
were now gone. I thought that the Spirit of God had quite left me; but still was NOT DISTRESSED; yet disconsolate, as
if there was nothing in heaven or earth could make me happy. Having been thus endeavoring to pray — though, as I
thought, very stupid and senseless — for near half an hour; then, as I was walking in a thick grove, unspeakable glory
seemed to open to the apprehension of my soul. I do not mean any external brightness, nor any imagination of a body of
light, but it was a new inward apprehension or view that I had of God, such as I never had before, nor anything which
had the least resemblance to it. I had no particular apprehension of any one person in the Trinity, either the Father,
the Son, or the Holy Ghost; but it appeared to be Divine glory. My soul rejoiced with joy unspeakable, to see such a
God, such a glorious Divine Being; and I was inwardly pleased and satisfied that he should be God over all for ever and
ever. My soul was so captivated and delighted with the excellency of God that I was even swallowed up in him, at least
to that degree that I had no thought about my own salvation, and scarce reflected that there was such a creature as
myself. I continued in this state of inward joy, peace, and astonishing, till near dark without any sensible abatement;
and then began to think and examine what I had seen; and felt sweetly composed in my mind all the evening following. I
felt myself in a new world, and everything about me appeared with a different aspect from what it was wont to do. At
this time, the way of salvation opened to me with such infinite wisdom, suitableness, and excellency, that I wondered I
should ever think of any other way of salvation; was amazed that I had not dropped my own contrivances, and complied
with this lovely, blessed, and excellent way before. If I could have been saved by my own duties or any other way that
I had formerly contrived, my whole soul would now have refused it. I wondered that all the world did not see and comply
with this way of salvation, entirely by the righteousness of Christ.”116

116 Edward’s and Dwight’s Life of Brainerd, New Haven, 1822,
pp. 45–47, abridged.

I have italicized the passage which records the exhaustion of the anxious emotion hitherto habitual. In a large
proportion, perhaps the majority, of reports, the writers speak as if the exhaustion of the lower and the entrance of
the higher emotion were simultaneous,117 yet often again they speak as if
the higher actively drove the lower out. This is undoubtedly true in a great many instances, as we shall presently see.
But often there seems little doubt that both conditions — subconscious ripening of the one affection and exhaustion of
the other — must simultaneously have conspired, in order to produce the result.

117 Describing the whole phenomenon as a change of
equilibrium, we might say that the movement of new psychic energies towards the personal centre and the recession of
old ones towards the margin (or the rising of some objects above, and the sinking of others below the conscious
threshold) were only two ways of describing an indivisible event. Doubtless this is often absolutely true, and Starbuck
is right when he says that “self-surrender” and “new determination,” though seeming at first sight to be such different
experiences, are “really the same thing. Self-surrender sees the change in terms of the old self, determination sees it
in terms of the new.” Op. cit., p. 160.

T. W. B., a convert of Nettleton’s, being brought to an acute paroxysm of conviction of sin, ate nothing all day,
locked himself in his room in the evening in complete despair, crying aloud, “How long, O Lord, how long?” “After
repeating this and similar language,” he says, “several times, I seemed to sink away into a state of insensibility.
When I came to myself again I was on my knees, praying not for myself but for others. I felt submission to the will of
God, willing that he should do with me as should seem good in his sight. My concern seemed all lost in concern for
others.”118

Our great American revivalist Finney writes: “I said to myself: ‘What is this? I must have grieved the Holy Ghost
entirely away.

I have lost all my conviction. I have not a particle of concern about my soul; and it must be that the Spirit has
left me.’ ‘Why!’ thought I, ‘I never was so far from being concerned about my own salvation in my life.’
. . . I tried to recall my convictions, to get back again the load of sin under which I had been laboring. I
tried in vain to make myself anxious. I was so quiet and peaceful that I tried to feel concerned about that, lest it
should be the result of my having grieved the Spirit away.”119

But beyond all question there are persons in whom, quite independently of any exhaustion in the Subject’s capacity
for feeling, or even in the absence of any acute previous feeling, the higher condition, having reached the due degree
of energy, bursts through all barriers and sweeps in like a sudden flood. These are the most striking and memorable
cases, the cases of instantaneous conversion to which the conception of divine grace has been most peculiarly attached.
I have given one of them at length — the case of Mr. Bradley. But I had better reserve the other cases and my comments
on the rest of the subject for the following lecture.